Guilarte v. Monti et al
Filing
40
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT MONTI'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed no later than December 2, 2016. Monti's reply, if any, shall be filed no later than December 16, 2016. The hearing on the motion is continued from December 16, 2016, to January 6, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 29, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
EDUARDO GUILARTE,
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ANDREA MONTI, et al.,
Defendants.
12
Case No. 16-cv-01726-MMC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME; CONTINUING HEARING ON
DEFENDANT MONTI'S MOTION TO
DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 38
13
14
Before the Court is plaintiff Eduardo Guilarte's "Application for Order [to] Extend
15
Time," filed November 23, 2016. Defendant Andrea Monti ("Monti") has not filed a
16
response thereto. Having read and considered the application,1 the Court rules as
17
follows.
18
In his application, plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to Monti's motion
19
to dismiss; specifically, plaintiff seeks an extension from November 23, 2016, to
20
November 25, 2016, for the asserted reason that his counsel was "in the hospital." (See
21
Appl. at 1:26-27.) Plaintiff, through counsel, filed the application at literally the eleventh
22
hour, specifically, at 11:59 p.m. on November 23, 2016. Moreover, the application was
23
filed one minute before the start of a national holiday, and, as set forth on this District's
24
1
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with a chambers copy of his application.
Nonetheless, the Court has considered it. For future reference, plaintiff is reminded that,
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7) and the Court's Standing Orders, parties are
required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed
electronically.
1
website, the undersigned was unavailable the following day as well. Lastly, as the
2
deadline for any opposition to the application was not due until November 28, 2016, see
3
Civil L.R. 6-3(b) (providing any opposition to motion to change time must be filed "no later
4
than 4 days after receiving the motion"),2 the application ordinarily could not be resolved
5
until a date after the date of the proposed extension.
6
7
Nevertheless, in light of the stated reason for an extension, the Court hereby
GRANTS the application, as follows:
8
1. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed no later than December 2, 2016.
9
2. Monti's reply, if any, shall be filed no later than December 16, 2016.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
3. The hearing on the motion is continued from December 16, 2016, to January 6,
2017, at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: November 29, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
26
27
28
Although plaintiff characterizes his application as "ex parte," the Local Rules of
this District prohibit a motion from being brought on an ex parte basis in the absence of
the moving party's having identified "the statute, rule or order which permits the use of an
ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought." See Civil L.R. 7-10. Plaintiff failed to cite any
such statute, rule or order, nor could plaintiff, as none exists.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?